JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla in Sessions Case No. 224 of 1993 dated 24-6-1994, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents accused of the charges levelled against them under Sections 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is no longer in dispute before me that the complainant PW-1 was married to A-1 on 30-7-1988 and A-2 is the mother of A-1. The complainant PW-1 is the daughter of PW-2 and sister of PW-7.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-2 gave an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and three sovereigns of gold as dowry to A-1. He also gave 0.50 cents of land to PW-1 which is situated in Nizampatnam. PW-1 and A-1 lived happily for two years. A girl was born to them. Then A-1 was addicted to drinks and developed illicit intimacy with another woman and spent the cash and the gold and, thereafter, started asking PW-1 to sell the half acre of land. On her refusal to sell the land, he started practising cruelty on her. One day A-1 beat her on her head whereupon she went to her parents house. On 7-5-1992 at the interference of her mother-in-law A-1 and others she returned to the house of A-1. But A-2 and A-4 instigated A-1 to kill her if she did not sell the half acre of land. On 24-11-1992 A-1 beat her whereupon she went to the house of PWs-3 and 4 on their asking and stayed there for some time. She has also lodged a report with the police and was medically examined. She again came to stay with A-1. On the mid-night of 28-11-1992 when she was sleeping in her house A-1 came there in a drunken state and abused her. Then saying why she has lodged the report with the police, which cannot take any action against him, he tried to press her neck. In the meantime, A-2 to A-4 came there and with the intention of killing her kicked her on her abdomen, but some-how she managed to escape and gave a written report with the police, which registered a case under sections 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 82 of 1992. The police prosecuted the accused persons.
4. The trial Court framed charges under sections 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. They abjured their guilt.
5. The trial Court, on assessment of the evidence on record, reached the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondents-accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them of the charges levelled against them under sections 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
7. PW-1 has stated on oath that A-1 had spent all the money and gold which were given to him as dowry at the time of their marriage because he was addicted to alcohol. Thereafter, A-2 insisted A-1 to ask her to sell half acre of land which was recorded in her name and A-1 in turn started insisting her to sell the land and used to beat her. Inspite of the beating she stayed in the house of A-1. She has also informed her father and sister that A-1 used to insist her to sell the land standing in her name and on the asking of PW-2 she stayed with him. On 7-5-1992 A-1 and A-2 came to her parents and, promising that they would keep her properly, requested her father to send her with them. Believing them she went with A-1 on the advice of her parents, but A-2 to A-4 continued on instigate A-1 to ask her to sell the land and, therefore, A-1 used to beat her and abused her in filthy language. A-2 to A-4 used to tell her to sell the land otherwise A-1 would not lookafter her properly. When she told A-2 that she would go to stay with her parents, her father-in-law had asked her and A-1 to reside in a separate house and, therefore, she shifted to another house with A-1. There also A-1 used to insist her to sell the half acre of land. He used to beat her and abused her in filthy language even in the new house. On 24-11-1992 at about 3.00 p.m., A-1 beat her and insisted her to sell the land. On her refusal, he tried to throttle her neck and beat her with a stick on her thigh and wrist. On her raising cries PW-3 and PW-4 came there and on their intervention she was saved. She reported the matter with the police which sent her to the hospital for treatment. For fear that A-1 may beat her again she went and stayed with PWs-3 and 4 for about two days and then returned to the house of A-1.
8. She has further stated on oath that on 28-11-1992 she had returned to the house of A-1 at about 5.00 p.m. When she was alone sleeping in her house, at about mid night A-1 knocked the doors. She opened the doors and went to sleep but A-1 came to her, abused her and asked her as to why she had lodged the report with the police. He again asked her to sell the half acre of land and saying so he started pressing her neck. In the meantime, A-2 to A-4 came there and kicked on her abdomen with their legs with an intention to kill her. She cried for help and managed to escape and went to the house of PW-3 and narrated the incident to him and his wife PW-4. She stayed in their house for the remaining night. On the next day morning, her father PW-2 came there to whom she narrated the incident and then she went with her father to Bapatla, where she prepared the report Ex. P-1 which bears her signature and submitted the report to the police. She was sent to the hospital for treatment.
9. The statement of PW-1 is corroborated on material facts by the evidence of her father PW-2 and her sister PW-5 under section 157 of the Evidence Act. Head Constable PW-6 has stated that on 29-11-1992 PW-1 came to the police station with PW-2 and presented a written report Ex. P-1 to him, whereupon he has registered a crime under Sections 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and prepared the first information report Ex. P-4.
10. Dr. B. Purnachandra Rao PW-7 has testified that on 29-11-1992 at about 11.30 a.m., he had examined PW-1 and found diffuse tender swelling over the right lateral region of the abdomen measuring 6′ x 4′ c.ms., and another diffuse tender swelling over the front of the neck vide wound certificate Ex. P-6. PW-1 has complained pain in abdomen and difficulty in swallowing. He had further stated to have examined PW-1 on 24-11-1992 and on which day he found multiple contusions and abrasion on both the upper and lower limbs of PW-1 for which she was given treatment in the hospital. His statement remains unchallenged during his cross-examination.
11. PWs-1, 2 and 5 were subjected to gruelling cross-examination but nothing could be brought out which may impair their testimonies.
12. The trial Judge has rejected the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 on the ground that PWs-3 and 4 did not support the version of PW-1. If PW-1 was beaten by A-1 on 24-11-1992 and the incident was witnessed by PWs-3 and 4 they would have definitely supported the case of PW-1. PW-1 and her husband A-1 stayed together in a separate house for about six months and there was no deference between them. It was suggested to PW-1 that A-1 used to help his parents and PW-1 did not like and, therefore, with the help of her father (PW-2) she had lodged a false report against them and, though she has denied it, the defence appeared probable because the defence witnesses have stated that PWs-1 and 2 had never complained to them about the criminal acts of A-1. Holding so, the trial Judge acquitted the accused persons.
13. It has been urged on behalf of the learned Counsel of the respondents-accused that PW-1 has admitted that the first information report Ex. P-4 was not read over before her signatures were obtained on it. She has stated that she did not stay in the hospital on 24-11-1992. PWs-3 and 4 have not corroborated her statement. The evidence on PWs-2 and 5 is hear say because they did not witness the occurrence though they have stated that PW-1 had stated about the cruelty practised by A-1 on her. It is further alleged on behalf of the respondents-accused persons that at the request of A-1 and A-2 PW-1 was brought back from the house of PW-2 and, therefore, it can be presumed that they wanted that A-1 should live happily with PW-1. The defence witnesses have stated that PW-1 had never complained about the behaviour of her husband A-1 to them. Under these circumstances, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 is not reliable and it is submitted that the trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents accused.
14. PWs-1 and 6 have stated on oath that a written report Ex. P-1 was presented in the police station by PW-1, whereupon PW-6 had recorded the first information report Ex. P-4. When a written report was lodged by PW-1 under her signature, the non-reading of the first information report. Ex. P-4 before her signatures were obtained on it is inconsequential. PW-1 has stated to have gone to the hospital with the police on 24-11-1992 and the Medical Officer PW-7 has stated that she was given treatment for the multiple injuries that were found in both the limbs of her body. Merely because PW-1 did not stay in the hospital as an indoor-patient would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution as the injuries did not appear to be so grave or severe that her stay in the hospital was a must.
15. PWs-3 and 4 who are husband and wife have stated before the police during their examination under S. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they had intervened in the quarrel on 24-11-1992 and PW-1 stayed with them. She had also narrated about the behaviour of her husband to them. But before the trial Court they did not support the case of the prosecution. They were confronted with their respective case diary statements but they denied to have stated so before the police. The Investigating Officer PW-6 has proved the relevant portions of their case diary statements which are at Exs. P-2 and P-3. The credit of these two witnesses has been impeached because their claim has been contradicted by the evidence of the Investigating Officer. It appears that being neighbours of A-1 they have suppressed the truth. True, that the case diary statements are not substantive evidence but the fact remains that their claim has been contradicted and it appears they they have become hostile to the prosecution and, therefore, their evidence is of no help either to the prosecution or to the accused. Under these circumstances, merely on the ground that PWs-3 and 4 did not support the statement of PW-1 it cannot be concluded that the evidence of PW-1 has become unreliable. As noted above, the evidence of PW-1 has been corroborated on material facts by the evidence of PWs-2 and 5 as also the evidence of the doctor and the promptly lodged first information report which is at Ex. P-1.
16. If PW-1 bore the brunt of the assault of A-1 being a Hindu wife, it cannot be said that it was unusual on her part to return to her husband’s house to live with him. There is evidence on record that she has a daughter also. Her parents used to advice her to patch-up the differences and stay with her husband and, therefore, her attempt of reconciliation cannot be made a ground to disbelieve her.
17. There may be some minor contradictions and exaggerations, here and there, which are not relevant or material, which could shake the evidence of PWs-2 and 5, in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277 : (1965(1) Cri LJ 256), which is reproduced below : (Para 6)
“The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in every thing) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, in cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest.”
18. The defence of A-1. DW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know about the relationship of PW-1 and A-1 because he was ignorant of the happenings of their house. Merely because PWs-1 and 2 did not complain to defence witnesses about the behaviour of A-1, it cannot be said that they have concocted a case against A-1.
19. In the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990, SC 2134 : (1990 Cri LJ 2276), it is held that : (Para 2)
“Law is well settled. While caution is the watchword, in appeal against acquittal as the trial Judge has occasion to watch demeanour of witnesses and interference should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been arrived, the provision does not inhibit any restriction of limitation. Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but in perversity or misreading interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless.”
20. There is no iota of the evidence on record about the relationship or interestedness of A-3 and A-4 with A-1. There is evidence on record that PW-1 stayed with A-1 in a separate house for about six months. A-2 with her husband was living separately. PW-1 has not stated that after she shifted to the new residence A-2 to A-4 ever came there and beat except her claim regarding the happenings of the mid night of 28-11-1992 when she was staying away from A-2. There is no evidence as to where A-3 and A-4 were staying. The evidence of PW-1 that they continued to insist A-1 to sell the half acre of land appears to be hear say because she has not stated that they had come the new residence and in her presence had insisted A-1 to ask her to dispose of the land. A-2 had asked PW-1 to sell the land otherwise A-1 will not keep her properly. It can be an elderly advice looking to the bad relationship between A-1 and PW-1. It was none else than the husband of A-2 who had advised PW-1 to stay with A-1 in a separate residence. No allegation has been made against A-2 to A-3 in the written report Ex. P-1 subsequent to the change of residence except for the incident of 28-11-1992. It appears highly improbable that A-2 to A-4 knew about the design to A-1 and would have accompanied him to his house on the night of 28-11-1992, particularly when there is no evidence on record that they had the knowledge of PW-1 returning to the house of A-1 at about 5.00 p.m., on 28-11-1992. Thus the evidence of PW-1 does not inspire confidence that A-2 to A-4 had insisted A-1 to ask PW-1 to sell the half acre of land, particularly when they were not at all going to be benefitted by such sale. But, as held in the case of Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar, (1965(1) Cri LJ 256 (SC) (supra), the evidence PW-1, though cannot be believed so far as A-2 to A-4 are concerned, can be accepted without hesitation so far as A-1 is concerned.
21. The trial Court, while appreciating the evidence on record, so far as A-1 is concerned, has considered irrelevant evidence, misread part of the evidence and has not subjected the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to a close and intelligent scrutiny and did not consider the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution correctly and, therefore, has failed to make out a serious endeavour to properly appreciate the evidence. Due to this, the learned trial Court has fallen in error in reaching the conclusion that the evidence of PW-1 is not worthy of reliance because the hostile witnesses PWs-3 and 4 did not support her say.
22. For the foregoing reasons, disagreeing with the learned trial Court, I reach the conclusion that A-1 used to practice cruelty on PW-1 because she did not agree to sell the half acre of her land for which he was pestering regularly and used to regularly beat her.
23. Looking to the nature of the injuries and non-intervention of third parties to save PW-1, I reach the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the requisite intention of killing PW-1.
24. For the reasons aforesaid, I hold A-1 guilty under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Agreeing with the trial Court, I reach the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused A-2 to A-4 under sections 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. I further hold that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the offence of A-1 under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
25. In result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of acquittal of A-2 to A-4 under Ss. 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. The order of acquittal under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code of A-1 is confirmed, but the order of acquittal of A-1 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Coe is reversed. A-1 is convicted for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and looking to the circumstances of the case, I sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred only), in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of one month. A-1 should immediately surrender before the trial Judge to serve the sentence imposed on him and in the event of default of making appearance warrant of arrest should be issued against him and he should be sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. The period which A-1 remained in jail after his arrest and during trial shall be set-off against the imprisonment of one year and he shall serve the remaining jail sentence.
26. Appeal partly allowed.